# The old ways versus the new



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

How much has changed over the years with cigar smoking? I guess this applies to all cigars, not just CC's. But my example requires mention of CC's past, so I posted here... and I know we'll get into the aging, LE and RG things too.

*The old way:* You found "your brand" and you mostly stuck to it. 

My Dad was a drugstore cigar smoker and I only remember him smoking Antonio y Cleopatra Grenadiers when I was little; later he switched to Garcia y Vega English Coronas. On a side note, I know he'd smoked the hell out of Cubans and Clear Havanas before I was born, but I suspect the drugstore brands were his concession to the responsibilities of raising a family on a budget, which I sincerely appreciate more than ever now that I know what a sacrifice that must have been.
JFK is known for his 11th hour request for help stocking in 1,000 H. Upmanns before he signed the Cuban embargo; supposedly the night before doing so. Story has it that his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, came up with 1,200 of them for him. They were, BTW, the now discontinued Petit Upmanns, not Petit Coronas as some claim (mostly vendors trying to make a connection to currently available PC's). The point is, though, that he wasn't trying to stock a cabinet full of a variety of selections. He wanted _"his cigar, his brand"_. And who can blame him, really? He certainly realized rum would not be the biggest sacrifice the US would make by outlawing Cuban imports.

*The new way:* Variety! Most of us try and like many different cigars. Some take it to real extremes. I hear many cigar smokers, especially new-gen smokers, with what I like to call a Pokemon-esque obsession - ya' know, the _"gotta' get 'em all"_ approach and a _"been there, done that"_ attitude once they've had a certain cigar.

Me, I'm sorta' in between. There are quite a few cigars I like, most of 'em CC's, and I do try new ones. But, once I do find something I really like I stock up and keep them in regular rotation. I know a lot of you do the same, so I'm not by any means suggesting my thinking is in any way unique. But, this is maybe more an eventuality that most veteran smokers arrive at after early forays into _"the new way"_.

My example applies not only to cigars, but apparently to micro-brews, whisky, coffee, and a host of other pursuits. I was tempted to mention wine, but it seems to be a forerunner, having long ago been approached with a varietal curiosity more so than most things. So, _"the new way"_ with cigars was always just _"the way"_ with wine, though I do see some modern vinophiles doing the _"been there, done that"_ thing.

Anyway, what else has seen such a sea-change in cigar smoking?


----------



## lostmedic (Apr 27, 2015)

I also say I'm inbetween because I try lots and lots of different cigars but I will go back to a certain stick if it wowed my. That being said I always try to get three to five of one stick before I make my mind out over it but if it's not a wowzer stick I move on to newer things


----------



## elco69 (May 1, 2013)

I started smoking about 4 years ago. I only had a few to choose from as my father was the one who supplied my stash, then I moved on and tried other cigars, some good, some bad. And so my journey began to discover what I liked. I keep a variety of NC's and I am currently building a variety of CC's, I think you have seen my other posts at the other place :smile: I keep a variety because it depends on the mood I am in. Late nights, I like a CC with some nice tea or a couple of finger of Balvenie to help my sleep. During the day I like my NC's. Golf course, I just grab whatever cheapy I have or if I want to try a cigar that I got from a noobie/ftp trade.

I think when it come to new versus old, I think it may have to do with availability of options and accessibility to information of said options. Since ordering on the internet, package tracking, ordering a variety and samplers, forums to discuss different brands and online reviews, it has become so convenient and easy. Back in the days, it wasn't so easy, so when you found something you liked and it was easy as going to the drug store, that is what you did and you stuck to it. Can you imagine trading pen pal letters the same we trade posts here. It is the digital landscape that has changed how majority of us choose to experience this hobby.


----------



## Ming on Mongo (May 15, 2015)

curmudgeonista said:


> How much has changed over the years with cigar smoking?
> 
> My example applies not only to cigars, but apparently to micro-brews, whisky, coffee, and a host of other pursuits. I was tempted to mention wine, but it seems to be a forerunner, having long ago been approached with a varietal curiosity more so than most things. So, _"the new way"_ with cigars was always just _"the way"_ with wine, though I do see some modern vinophiles doing the "been there, done that" thing.


Some great observations, and "variety", the more exotic the better, does seem to be more 'de rigueur' now. Also agreed with Henry that this has been enormously 'facilitated' by online shopping, trading and auctions&#8230; where if you just have the right $$, you can get dang near anything now, from aged CC's, to knock-offs, to European smokes, to asian 'no-names'.&#8230; and instantly become an "expert" or "connoisseur".

Which BTW, also seems to coincide with the ascendance of "Hipster Culture", where "coolness" (aka, status) is achieved thru making increasingly esoteric consumer choices (aka, "I was into Herrera Esteli Piramide Finos _before_ they were cool)! :mrgreen:


----------



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

Okay, moving on. How about ring gauges? The _"old way"_ tended toward medium RG's while _"the new way"_ is currently heavily focused on larger and larger RG's.

It's not that there haven't always been fatties, but what passed for a fat cigar in the old days mostly meant a Churchill at 47 RG or a double corona at 49 RG, or even the somewhat (I think) more recent robusto at 50 RG. It seems to me that cigar makers of old must have experimented with even larger RG's. Why wouldn't they? But my guess is they found that the best flavor was produced by cigars in what's come to be accepted as the more traditional range - mostly 40-50, with, of course, some exceptions like belicosos going up few notches or panatelas that dropped down a few.

I grant you that there may be progress in tobacco growing and processing that changes the game a bit. But for the most part I find 60+ RG's more _"hype & hope"_ than _"ripe & dope"_ (apologies for getting too cute by half there). And I think the cigar makers of years past knew that.

Call it a wedge issue, like in politics. We BOTL's seem to be divided over the merits of super-fatties. Personally, and no doubt obviously, I come down on the side of _"the old way"_, of traditional RG's being better.

The typical argument revolves around the influence of the wrapper versus filler. Those on my side of the debate commonly claim that it's the wrapper being the highest quality tobacco that is at the root of its influence. But here I have to disagree, at least in the details of cause & effect. Though it's amply clear to me that the wrapper does have an inordinate influence on flavor, there's a lot more filler than wrapper.

And that's where fans-of-the-fatty (FOTF's, if you will) find a ***** in our armor. Logic would seem to say, even in medium RG's like a traditional corona 42-44 RG there's simply not enough wrapper to have such a large effect on flavor by volume alone. And I buy that. To a certain point, anyway. After all, if that's all there is too it, and you wanted to make the best cigar in the world, you'd merely need to select wrapper-quality tobacco for the binder and filler too. But, it doesn't work like that. It's been tried.

Yet, I also know from experience that the end result defies that logic; that the wrapper is a critical component of a cigar's flavor profile. My guess is it has more to do with the location of the wrapper and resulting access to more oxygen when burning than merely the wrapper quality versus filler quality. Think about it. Most of the filler is fighting for oxygen, drawing from a very narrow feed, with perhaps less and less oxygen available further and further towards the middle as the the diameter of the cigar grows larger and larger. OTOH, the wrapper draws oxygen from nearly 180˚ surround. Could it be that that's the key to it's greater influence on flavor?

Cigar makers in the old days may not have had our more modern scientific methods and tools. Yet, they had something we seem to lack these days. They had the time and patience to experiment through trial and error to determine what made for the very best smokes! And perhaps without quite knowing exactly why, I think they hit upon some pretty ideal formulas for cigar sizing.

As always, YMMV. But mark me down as a traditionalist. Put a 5x42 petite corona in my hand any day over a 6x60 super-toro.


----------



## elco69 (May 1, 2013)

I think RG has to do more with personal preference than anything else and for a lot of noobs, including me at one point, looked at a bigger RG of the same marca as a better deal. For me, I got over it quick. I tend to settle in around the 47-50 RG, I do have some larger and some smaller, but about 80% of my stash falls into the 47-50 range.


----------



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

elco69 said:


> I think RG has to do more with personal preference than anything else and for a lot of noobs, including me at one point, looked at a bigger RG of the same marca as a better deal. For me, I got over it quick. I tend to settle in around the 47-50 RG, I do have some larger and some smaller, but about 80% of my stash falls into the 47-50 range.


See, that's part of what I mean. You view 47-50 RG as moderate, a range you backed down to. New-gen. To someone like me who started way-back-when those are fat cigars. Back then most of us saw/see those either as special occasion cigars, or they were for fat-cat bankers.

And, pursuant to my theory that cigar makers of old had already discovered the sizing formulas that worked best, it's interesting that you settled back into gauges that were in their wheelhouse, albeit at the upper end of it.

I'll admit that I have not tried a lot of super-fatties. Only a few. But there is nothing about a 60, 70 or 80 RG that appeals to me. To my eye they look ridiculous and, of the few I've tried, flavors were muted. Though I will admit that I've had a few in the mid-50's RG that were good and only slightly silly looking to me.

I guess there is also something in this to do with how one addresses smoking a cigar. Some guys center the cigar and wrap their lips around it like a giant whistle. I guess fatties are not problem if you do that. But I hold a cigar between my teeth, off to the side. Anything over 50 RG, other than a torpedo, are jawbreakers for a chomper. That might be another _"new way / old way"_ thing.


----------



## StogieNinja (Jul 29, 2009)

Man... I love the new way, with tons of blends and variety available. I think the old way was to try and produce something that everyone liked, but now, we're getting stuff that some people hate, but others absolutely LOVE. I think it's great that there are so many options out there. And with the internet bloggers and reviewers, you can get a quick consensus on what a lot of people think about any particular option.

As for ring gauge, frankly I'm all for that as well, for a couple reasons. First, variety is the spice of life. I love being able to grab a 38rg Lancero, or a 54rg if I want that fat experience. Anything over that and I won't smoke it, but that brings me to my second point: I LOVE that the fat rg guys are subsidizing my love of smaller RG stuff. @ssaka and others have mentioned that when it comes to cost, coronas cost nearly as much as gordos to make, but the because of customer perception, the fatter cigars are priced above, with a larger profit margin, and the coronas are priced less, with a smaller profit margin. Well, I'm _happy _to let the fat rg fans pay more and keep the cost lower on my favorite sizes!


----------



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

Here's another _"new way"_ thing - short cigars, especially short fat cigars.

This one, I think, has more to with modern day attitudes toward smoking. So many areas have outlawed smoking indoors (bars, restaurants, and such) and households where the resident smokers only smoke outdoors that there is a definite need for cigars that do not take as much time to smoke. This one I'm on-board with. Though I work from my basement office (which is also my "man cave") and I do smoke indoors at my desk, I still don't always have a lot of time to devote to focusing on a cigar. I smoke a lot of marevas and minutos lately, but even robustos border on being a short smoke and newer short or petit robustos definitely fit. IMO, it's also easy to get bored with a 2-hour cigar. Most of the time I'd rather smoke two smaller cigars than one big one.


----------



## StogieNinja (Jul 29, 2009)

curmudgeonista said:


> See, that's part of what I mean. You view 47-50 RG as moderate, a range you backed down to. New-gen. To someone like me who started way-back-when those are fat cigars. Back then most of us saw/see those either as special occasion cigars, or they were for fat-cat bankers.


I think that may have to do with who smoked and how. Back in the day, fat cat bankers could spend an hour or two in a lounge, so they smoked bigger cigars. Working men smoked coronas or pipes, you couldn't afford two hours to sit around and smoke. Nowadays, everyone has so much (and feels entitles to so much) "entertainment" time; your average working-class guy enjoys a couple hours every night to watch TV or whatever, and so taking an hour or two is no longer a luxury, so everyone smokes bigger cigars.



curmudgeonista said:


> I'll admit that I have not tried a lot of super-fatties. Only a few. But there is nothing about a 60, 70 or 80 RG that appeals to me. To my eye they look ridiculous and, of the few I've tried, flavors were muted. Though I will admit that I've had a few in the mid-50's RG that were good and only slightly silly looking to me.


I've tried quite a few in the 54-70rg range, and don't care for almost any of them. Some weren't bad, but it's rare that I'll prefer a blend in an rg like that if it's available in a smaller rg. In fact, at the moment, the only one I can think of is the Bhk54, which I prefer over the Bhk52.

One of the more consistent cigars that really illustrates the difference in a fat rg vs a small rg is the Oliva V, which is available in a huge range of sizes. The No 4, and the Lancero are by _far _the best vitolas in the lineup, while the fat ones just don't do it, and taste much more blah. The blend isn't as sharp or as complex.



curmudgeonista said:


> I guess there is also something in this to do with how one addresses smoking a cigar. Some guys center the cigar and wrap their lips around it like a giant whistle. I guess fatties are not problem if you do that. But I hold a cigar between my teeth, off to the side. Anything over 50 RG, other than a torpedo, are jawbreakers for a chomper. That might be another _"new way / old way"_ thing.


I don't know that chomping is a new way/old way thing, I feel like that's more of a personality thing. Some guys wouldn't dream of chomping in a cigar, getting the end wet, sucking that wet tobacco juice, etc. Some guys _love _it. I'm in the former camp, I do not like chomping on my cigar, but my buddy Terry will chew them for a while without even lighting up if he's in the middle of something.


----------



## elco69 (May 1, 2013)

I don't think RG has too much to do with new/old way, I think it has to do with how a person was originally introduced to cigars and what they smoked when they started. I like PC's, Secretos, Lanceros, but I did not try any of those until about 4-5 months ago and I have been enjoying cigars for about 4 years. I am just plainly used to the 47-50RG. As for @Aninjaforallseasons was saying, I think it does depend on the time it takes to smoke one etc. If I want a quick but very enjoyable, I will grab a PC or Secretos and be satisfied. To me and this can be way off ,but how a cigar "looks" in regards to RG also depends on the person smoking it. I am 6'1 235 lbs. I have seen pictures of myself with a robusto and a pc and the pc looks like a cigarette and the robusto looks more normal alternatively my the same pc with my small ass friend who is like 5' and 85lbs soaking wet, looks normal, it is all about perception.


----------



## Bird-Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

elco69 said:


> I don't think RG has too much to do with new/old way, I think it has to do with how a person was originally introduced to cigars and what they smoked when they started.


Not meaning to offend, but I think you came full circle with that statement. I don't think old school included starting with 60 RG's, and it would appear that there's most certainly more acceptance of super-sized RG's among new-gen smokers... and, yes, less tolerance for them among the old. Not chiseled-in-stone, of course, but leanings certainly fall that way more often than not.

As for your other observations regarding the right cigar for one's build, there's definitely some old-school history there that lingers on. Used to be treated the same as selecting the right suit by some.

Anyway, new subject:

New-School - Infused cigars

Old School - Dipped in Brandy

The very first CC I ever had was with my Dad in Hong Kong in 1985. We had dinner one night at Hugo's in the old Hyatt Regency Hotel on the Kowloon side (since torn down). After dinner a little gal came around and offered the gents a complimentary Cuban cigar. Upon my acceptance, she dipped the head of the cigar in a snifter of brandy she had on her tray before snipping the end and holding a match for me to light it with. The brandy soaked right in, not a hint of wetness to the cigar (if you've ever "watered" a cigar you know what I mean). Anyway, it was heaven.


----------



## elco69 (May 1, 2013)

curmudgeonista said:


> Old School - Dipped in Brandy


Now we are talking, I am old school then. I periodically like to dip mine into single malt scotch or brandy. Funny how the alcohol taste goes away and you get this slightly sweet draw.


----------



## ORMason (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm new school as far as sampling but don't like infused cigars. I'll be try the scotch dip soon. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## moto (Aug 3, 2014)

the OP definitely applies to craft beer.

people are just checking off the list. their biggest point of pride is how many they've checked.


----------



## dvickery (Jan 1, 2000)

curmudgeonista

my dad was a smoker of " cheap sh!t " cigars ... mostly monty#4's (at 6$ a box in 1971 ) and rarely tried others . i on the other hand like variety and my old stand by's equally .

i think a simple answer to the question you ask ... life before the internet and life after the internet .

derrek


----------



## ThaDrake (Sep 28, 2015)

For me with CC, I don't venture out of my comfort zone too much due to not easily being able to obtain less than a box of ones I've not tried. (favorites being Ramon Allones, San Cristobal, Vegas Robaina, Partagas, and Quintero for every day smokes) If I end up with something new I love in a trade or sampler, it has, at times, added a brand to my list of likes, but I tend to fall back to my comfort zone. With NC, I'm way more of a 'Pokemon collector.' But there are definitely some favorite brands I always have more of than others, like Carlos Toranos, Oliva, Padron, Tatuaje, and La Flor Dominicana.


----------

